My honest opinion here is that almost everyone is completely missing a crucial point. Nearly all of the reasons given for locking people out of modifying their cars apply equally to cars without computers. Changing the odometer? It's far easier to do that on a car with a mechanical odometer. Making the vehicle non-emissions compliant? Nobody used the DMCA to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to remove their catalytic converters. All of this has been fought for far longer than computers have existed. People have been successfully fooled into thinking that this is a new situation, when technology is only being used to prop up an ancient ideology. Very frustrating indeed!
The core automaker message I got out of this is:<p>Automakers want to lock out consumers and unapproved mechanics from tinkering with vehicle software on the grounds that (1) they could purposefully or accidentally make the vehicle non-compliant with safety/emission standards, and (2) they could use the vehicle's computers to infringe copyright (presumably ripping streaming audio?), and (3) closed source = more difficult for malicious hacking of vehicles.<p>There are already laws in place to deter all of the outcomes of these actions. To deter the action that <i>might</i> lead to unlawful action... sigh.
"Own" is such an overloaded term. What do you own when you own anything? It's almost always complicated! If you own a music album on compact disc then people say they own that album. But you aren't allowed to make copies of that disc. And you absolutely can't makes copies and then sell the copies. You can't even use that disc whenever and whereever you want. For example you can't play that disc through stadium speakers at a sporting event. Nor can you use host a concert and play parts of that album. You can't do it to mix with other music and you can't even play it directly.<p>So again I say, own is such an overloaded term. I wish people used it far less than they do.
You know, I'd be okay with that if I no longer had to pay property tax, insurance, maintenance, fuel and other costs on the vehicles I no longer owned and instead that burden fell to the automakers.
Who is going to start publishing open source car firmware? I imagine that putting something together that would run some of the newer cars would actually be quite difficult. I'm guessing that writing enough software to just get a Tesla to turn on safely and pull out of the garage will be quite an undertaking.<p>I can see a huge benefit from having FOSS versions of car firmware in the future. It could be especially important if you don't agree with your manufacturers choice of ethics for automatic driving (See the AI Tunnel Problem).<p><a href="http://robohub.org/an-ethical-dilemma-when-robot-cars-must-kill-who-should-pick-the-victim/" rel="nofollow">http://robohub.org/an-ethical-dilemma-when-robot-cars-must-k...</a>
Hahaha, remember when we always made car analogies about how we could use or modify software?<p><a href="https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/the-car-analogy" rel="nofollow">https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/the-car-analogy</a><p>They're no longer analogies! They're the literal truth! This is very sadly funny. :-( :-/ :-)
When we have self-driving cars will we still expect to hack on the software? I really feel my pedestrian avoidance is too sensitive, let's tighten that up a little. And I want to win all four-way stops!
"They warn that owners with the freedom to inspect and modify code will be capable of violating a wide range of laws and harming themselves and others."<p>This argument is a bit silly, given how many laws can be broken and how much harm can be done by anyone behind the wheel of an automobile, regardless of how it has been modified.
IMO, we should separate two things:<p>* Ability to modify firmware of your own car.<p>* Ability to inspect and review code in the car.<p>The first one is dangerous, imagine someone who wanted to improve ABS but didn't do testings, and this led to a crash. Or, if we consider, more intelligent self driving cars, possibilities for abuse, etc, are enormous.<p>The second one is discussable. On one hand, we want to make cars as safe as possible, and there's no better way for this, than inspecting code. On the other hand, the company wants to protect their intellectual properties from competitors.
"Right to Repair" laws have been in the works (and opposed by the auto industry) for at least 15 years and recently passed by Massachusetts. One goal is to level the playing field between dealers and independent shops by forcing manufacturers to give up technical info, part of that being the interface with computer systems. I'm not sure if the law mentions software modification at all, but it sounds like a court battle waiting to happen.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Vehicle_Owners%27_Right_to_Repair_Act" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Vehicle_Owners%27_Right_t...</a>
We don't have cars anymore; we have computers we ride in. […] So when I get into a car—a computer that I put my body into—with my hearing aid—a computer I put inside my body—I want to know that these technologies are not designed to keep secrets from me, or to prevent me from terminating processes on them that work against my interests.<p>Cory Doctorow, <a href="http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html" rel="nofollow">http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html</a>
Well, if they're interested in selling more cars, I'm in the market for a car that I can diagnose, repair and customize via a usb connection to my laptop.<p>There's an aversion to transparency in a lot of software stuff because you can't prevent people from stealing your hard-earned work, but in giving your customers more accessibility you'll have an immediate edge in the car market, which, after all, is how you make money.
I generally agree with the EFF, I'd even say I'm a fan, but I disagree on this one.<p>TL;DR == "tough"<p>Regulations can be bad, they can stifle innovation, enforce inequality, maintain awful power structures, etc. But, they can also save lives. In America there are a million things you can't do because they infringe on the safety of others.<p>At an abstract level, an automobile is 3,000 lbs. of metal holding 10 gallons of gasoline that carries human beings through public spaces at up to ~70mph. It travels through neighborhoods where children live and play at up to 25mph. It's a mixture of chemical, mechanical, computing and electrical systems that an engineer needs about 10 years of study to be able to handle <i>after</i> they get to engineering school. Even then they'll specialize.<p>Car enthusiasts simply don't have the skills to merit carte blanche access to mess around with cars that drive on public roads. In general, they probably don't even have the skills necessary to evaluate their skills which is what makes this so dangerous.<p>Tinkering with a mechanical system like your brakes is very different from tinkering with a computing system that through an electrical system is controlling the mechanical system that is your brakes. That's orders of magnitude of new complexity. Do you really think the average car-guy will understand the bugfix, written in optimized C or assembly, that accounts for how a certain transistor behaves above 200 degrees Fahrenheit?<p>To be clear, these laws aren't to protect anybody from their own stupidity, they protect the rest of us. If you <i>do</i> have the skills to tinker at this level then you're free to use them in race cars that aren't street-legal.
Before you go down the path of "Would you want people altering the way their autonomous vehicle works?" consider that it's already too late. There is open source software for a variety of autonomous self-propelled robots, land vehicles, and aircraft.<p>Why hasn't a problem manifested already, when I can build a drone, download software for it, and tweak it all I want? It's because very few people do that. And vanishingly few do it will ill intent.<p>I'm sure that 15 years form now there will be a true crime show about someone who programmed their car to run over their spouse. (It's always the spouse.) But that shouldn't be an excuse to stifle the thousands of beneficial results from hacking automotive systems that will come about from people satisfying their curiosity about what's on the CAN bus.
As much as I am pro-FOSS, don't vehicle manufacturers have a right to copyright protection too? Why should vehicle computers be somehow different from other computers, which we allow to run proprietary code?<p>I guess my point is that, even being a FOSS advocate and pro-DIY, I don't see why car makers should be compelled to hand over their code, unless of course they're already using GPLed or similar OSS code.<p>Troubleshooting diagrams would be reasonable to ask for, or perhaps some documentation of the protocols used. But demanding that a company release their source code because you essentially feel entitled to it is pushing the buck if you ask me.
I recall that it's common to make one kind of processor, and deliberately cripple them to varying degrees to ensure you can sell to every price point without having to go through the extra expense of making a range of processors.<p>The analogy with car engines, I presume, is to make one kind of car engine, and to use the electronic control system to present a range of performances to the consumer market, without having to go to the expense of actually making different engines. Does this already happen, or is it yet to come?
Is not that I don't like smart cars, the problem is that they allow a transfer of control from who's supposed to be the owner to institutions and hackers:
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jstaBeXgAs" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jstaBeXgAs</a><p>Lets say that by a surreal act of good software engineering, you get rid of the hackers problem, what are the odds of getting rid of corruptible institutions?
This applies as well to mobility devices like powerchairs and scooters and other things like motorized beds that change your position. Without the service manuals, it can be very hard to fix these.
And its titles and articles like this which prevent me from send a <i>dime</i> to the EFF.<p>Automakers aren't trying to take ownership of my car away from me. This is linkbait... no, it's donationbait, and as long as the EFF keeps this up, they get nothing from me, and they should get nothing from you, either.
I strongly disagree with the eff. Safety trumps all and there simply isn't a compelling need (that I can think of) that requires the need to tinker with the auto software. All of the "arguably restricts vehicle inspection, repair, and modification" is just a red herring.<p>"The reach of copyright law has expanded so far that it now threatens people's ability to repair their own cars and protect them against malware. Yesterday, EFF launched a legal campaign to fend off that threat."<p>Can't even think that I have read any stories (so far) about malware having an impact on auto operation. Hard to believe that opening up the software won't result in something bad happening either.